Similar Trademark Issued For Different Items Does Not Amount To Breach Of Law

The long pending question in the field of Intellectual Property Rights, with respect to the Tademarks, was finally answered by the Supreme Court, when it ruled, in the case of Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.[1], that no law is violated or breached, if the two companies, with two different products, use the similar Trademark for their products.

The decision of the Supreme Court on the decade long dispute serves as the answer to one of the most disputed questions in the field of IPR – Whether similar Trademarks can be used by two different companies for un-identical and different products?

Usually a trademark is directly related to the goodwill that a particular Company/manufacture has acquired over a period of time. If anyone, apart from the manufacturer, is allowed to use that Trademark, it will violate the Right of the manufacturer and cause confusion in the minds of the Consumers, as the person, other than the manufacturer/company, using it will be benefitted from the goodwill of the Trademark, which took the authorized person so many years to build in the first place.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute in the present case pertains to the adoption of the mark “NANDHINI” by the Petitioners in the year 1989, which is in the business of running restaurants. The mark was already adopted by the Respondents as “NANDINI” in the year 1985 and has been in the business of producing and selling milk and milk products thereon. It also got the mark registered under Class 29 and Class 30. The dispute arose, when the Petitioner, for its business, adopted the mark “NANDHINI” for its restaurants, and applied for its registration with respect to various foodstuff items sold in the restaurant.

The Respondent raised the objection over the registration of the said mark on the grounds that the mark is deceptively similar to their mark and is likely to cause confusion. The Respondents argued that the mark has attained a distinctive character of its own and thus, the use of the mark would lead public to believe that the foodstuff items sold by the Petitioner are in fact of the Respondents, and thus, the Respondent has the exclusive right over the use of the mark. The objections were dismissed by the Deputy Registrar of the Trademark, allowing the registration of the said mark in favour of the Appellant. The Respondents approached the IPAB, Chennai with the prayer to cancel the registration given to the Appellants. These appeals were allowed by the IPAB and the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners against these were dismissed by the High Court, thereby confirming the order of IPAB.

Analysis:

Before moving to the analysis, it is pertinent to mention that the dispute arose further as the products offered by both the Petitioners and the Respondents, i.e. milk & milk products and the foodstuff items, fell in the same class of Trademark, Class 29 and Class 30. Thus, it became more complex to answer the question that whether the different products, falling in the same class, could be granted the similar mark or not.

It is a settled principle in law that in such cases, the burden is upon the applicant to prove that the Trademark, which the applicant is seeking to register, is not likely to cause confusion in the minds of people. It is upon him to satisfy the Registrar that the Trademark applied for does not fall within the prohibition and thus, can be registered.[2] When the similarity of the name of the two products is taken into account, the evidence of actual confusion, when analyzed, should be impressive to an extent that the consumer is barely able to distinguish between the two or not at all.[3] Also, in the present case, the Appellant applied for the trademark for products like tea, sugar, coffee, rice etc., as it is operating as a restaurant, while the Respondent has got its Trademark registered for the milk and milk related products. Though, both the things fall under the same class, yet these are different products. The Supreme Court previously held that if a trader or manufacturer, manufactures or trade in one product in a broad classification, it cannot be permitted monopoly over the mark on other products in the same class, if that trader has no bona fide intention of manufacturing or trading in other goods and articles falling in that broad classification.[4]

Conclusion:

Thus, applying the above laid down principles, in the present case, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar granting the registration in favour of the Appellant. However, the Supreme Court also added that such a registration should not be granted with respect to the milk and milk products.

The Supreme Court rightly upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar as the two products, though falling in the same class, could be easily distinguished by the Consumers. Granting the registration to the Appellant with respect to the items sold in the restaurant will not prove detrimental to the Respondent as the products are totally different from that of the Respondent. Also, the Appellant applied for the mark in the year 1989, which is 4 years later, which was just 4 years later to the Respondents using the mark NANDINI. On condition which is required to be fulfilled for the objection to a mark is that the mark should have achieved a distinct character. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the mark used by the Respondent had acquired distinctiveness in those 4 years. Thus, two different products, falling in the same class can be granted similar trademark subject to certain modifications.

Author:  Aditya Ladha, 4th Year student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at niharika@khuranaandkhurana.com

References:

[1] Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.; AIR 2018 SC 3516

[2] National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros., AIR 1953 SC 357

[3] Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronic Corporation, 287 F. 2d 492 (1961)

[4] Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishandas v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad & Anr., 1996 SCALE (5) 267

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010